Sandy Hook

[57Brave]

A Connecticut judge refused to throw out a case against the company that makes a weapon used in the 2012 shootings.





The families of the victims, which included 20 children and six school staff members, sued the gun manufacturer, arguing the AR-15 rifle Adam Lanza used in the shooting should never have been sold to civilians. This is a potentially devastating blow to the gun industry, which has been protected by federal law from being held liable for crimes committed with its products.

http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/ne...=newthread&f=9

[striker42]

This is not as big of a deal as the headlines are making it out to be. First, this is just a local superior court judge making this decision. It can and probably will be appealed.

Next, the plaintiff's arguments are based on a negligent entrustment theory. They are saying this is an exception to the federal law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits. The judge didn't say they were right in the ruling. The judge simply said that the federal law doesn't preclude jurisdiction by the superior court at this point. The judge actually made a point to mention that the federal law can still be used to attack the plaintiffs' claims.

Finally, this was a motion to dismiss the case. When you have one of these you have to view everything most in favor of the non-moving party (plaintiffs here). You essentially have to assume the plaintiff will prove everything they're alleging and whether they would have a claim if they did. All the judge said today is that if the Sandy Hook victims prove everything they're alleging with their negligent entrustment theory, they might have a claim. This is a very long way from holding a gun manufacturer liable.